3. Some assessment of the local political values and objectives and how far they represent an institutional constraint to effective poverty reduction policies and schemes. This should include some insights on domestic political perceptions of patronage politics and their relation to the poor.

Optionally, if resources permit there could also be an account since about 1985 of evolution of the poverty agenda within the country especially where this has resulted from indirect donor influence on the a) nature of the agenda and from b) political change/reform; eg where political liberalization and multi-party elections since 1990 have induced changes in the PR agenda through the importance of the rural vote, interest group pressures, the need to compete on manifestos, etc.

4. The current position of the government on PR. Its strategies or policies which are likely to have poverty reducing effects (where they exist). This will be relevant to the study of dialogue between recipient authorities and the donors in later sections of this paper.

1.3 Method

Most of this section of the report will be undertaken largely by local researchers/consultants. They should 'own' it and publish it separately as a working paper. However, the team will need to explore it themselves directly in preparation for work on recipient-donor dialogue.

The scope of the work which can be done locally will be determined by the availability of funds to the team.

The local collaborators will also carry out fieldwork for exploring the specific aid intervention(s) in later sections.

The assessment of domestic strategies/policies for poverty reduction can be drawn from political manifestos, official policy plans, public expenditure documents, plus interviews with officials. There should be a search of the literature on PR impact studies which might be 'synthesized' by the local collaborator/research.

Any existing completed studies of the impact of political liberalization ,multi party and new electoral systems on public policy affecting the poor, can be synthesized and perhaps updated.

II. Donor Positions and Strategies on PR

A distinction will be made between donors which are actively committed to poverty reduction and those without a specific strategy or commitment to PR, with the former being covered in greater depth.

2.1 Donors with a strategy or strong commitment to PR objectives

The team will need to focus its research on 3-4 donors who are reasonably 'committed' to PR activities since substantive exploration of dialogue and interventions will only possible for them. The EC will need to be one of the donors.

The team will need to set out:

2.2 Donors with no strategy or less commitment to PR

Some insight should be provided on those donors in the country with no explicit PR strategy and at least the following minimal questions should be posed:

2.3 Method and Sources

Donor documentation principally, and possibly the DAC and UNDP.

III. Recipient-donor Interaction/dialogue on Country-wide Programme/agenda

This is an exploration of the interface between the donor representatives and the recipient representatives, their different perspectives, the nature of the dialogue and reconciliation of differences as well as any 'conflict' patterns of behaviour and 'withdrawal' etc. The emphasis is on the nature of the process involved in determining the 'country-wide' agenda, and the aim is to assess how effective this interaction/dialogue is in terms of outcomes favourable to poverty reduction. About four donors committed to PR (including the Commission) should be covered. Section 3.3 covers dialogue between European Donors and the World Bank, and the extent to which they seek to and succeed in promoting a pro-poor reform agenda. Dialogue concerning individual donor projects or sectoral aid will be assessed in Section IV.

3.2 Exploration of bilateral dialogue between individual donor and recipient on the country strategy

Although the substance of the poverty agenda for a country is important, attention should be paid to the process of identification of this agenda, the dialogue and conditionality relating to it and its apparent effectiveness.

3.2.1 The Process of Designing Country Strategies

3.2.2 Dialogue and negotiation issues

3.2.3 Effectiveness

3.2.4 Method

It is intended to explore these issues via interviews with donor and recipient officials, donor/recipient briefs, records or minutes of meetings between the authorities, relevant documents, etc. There may be an occasional chance to observe directly a donor/recipient meeting or exchange.

Judging the effectiveness of dialogue is not particularly easy. In reviewing effectiveness of the outcomes the team can draw on:

1) what donors themselves think of the dialogue outcomes;

2) observed comparison (where possible) of a donor's original PR influenced' strategy or agenda and the outcome after negotiations;

3) the apparent change in public expenditure or policy in a pro-poor direction;

4) the team's view of the likely effectiveness of the process, etc.

3.3 European Donors' Interaction with the World Bank

Where European donors provide sectoral support or programme aid support in conjunction with the World Bank, it is important to examine their role in influencing Bank's policy dialogue with recipient authorities. The role of European donors (individually or collectively) in the formation of a PR agenda and the dialogue on it should be assessed:

3.3.1 Method

Use of bilateral donors programme aid/budgetary aid proposals, any records of meetings with each other and World Bank staff. Records of EU Coordinating Groups, Consultative Groups and sub-groups. World Bank documentation (including Poverty Assessments and PERs), Letters of Development Policy agreed with recipient and Country Strategy Papers (where accessible). Interviews with bilateral EU and World Bank officials.

3.4 Background

The following definitions and concepts may be useful when assessing the recipient-donor dialogue on country strategies:

The 'aid relationship' involves at least two management systems - that of the donor and that of the recipient. These create an inter-organizational 'arena'. The interface includes face-to-face encounters between representatives/actors of the different systems with different interests, resources and power. These have different goals and perceptions which can be changed in the process. The relationship tends to have its own rules or modes of regulation.

There are several main factors influencing the effectiveness of the aid relationship especially in relation to poverty reduction goals.

the country context

- the degree of poverty, the macro economic situation and especially the budgetary situation.

the representatives or actors

- from the donor side these include (whether in HQ or in the field) heads of division, country or programme managers, advisers, subcontracted officers/specialists as project managers, etc.

- from the recipient side there are the central Ministries (Finance and Planning), aid coordination units, specialised Ministries, provincial planning units, local authorities; etc.

mode of regulation

- there are formal administration structures and rules and procedures regulating the donor and recipient and their interaction. These include:

- the bilateral donor's country strategy, programming, project management and monitoring procedures;

- the recipient's public expenditure budget and planning, its own project management and monitoring systems; and

- the multi-donor structures/procedures such as Consultative Groups and sub-groups, EU coordinating procedures etc.

the donor and the recipient government's values and objectives

- the focus is on their respective goals, aims and strategies relating to poverty reduction.

interaction patterns and their management

- the patterns of management/dialogue (negotiation/bargaining, compromise, and conflict patterns) and decision-making behaviour (agreed strategies or sectoral policies, decisions about the choice of projects etc).

IV. Comparative Case Studies

4.1 Objectives and Approach

This part of the study will attempt to compare a sample of sectoral and project interventions aimed at poor or vulnerable people, with the aim of providing a stronger empirical basis to the research. Guidance on how to assess the effectiveness with which donors use sector programmes as an instrument for funding and dialogue on pro-poor objectives is provided in Section 4.2, and for PR projects in Section 4.3.

The aim is to examine the processes involved and the effectiveness (and impact where possible) of these interventions in relation to their stated PR aims. The key managerial elements in the process of donor interventions should also be examined. Then, the approaches to the management of these different interventions should be related as far as possible to the degree of effectiveness of the outcomes.

4.1.1 The Two-Stage Approach

A two-stage approach to comparisons will be adopted. In the initial stage all available evaluation, monitoring and other material covering sectoral and project interventions relevant to poverty reduction from a broad range of donors will be drawn upon. This will provide a provisional comparison of donor processes, inputs and outputs in relation to PR.

In the second stage, a small sample of interventions will be selected for in-depth case study work. These will be chosen to a large degree by the depth of information available for them. This implies looking empirically and in some depth and over time, at a specific intervention and intervention process. Multiple sources of evidence will need to be used. Direct field investigation should be possible (drawing on the local collaborators). However, a statistical approach with a random choice and representative sample in the statistical sense is not anticipated. Guidance on the selection of interventions for in-depth study is provided in Section 4.4.

The strengths of making a set of in-depth case studies are seen as the following:

Even a few cases will allow some general conclusions about the character of the process. This is especially so if interventions/events are similar in their goal (PR) in one country but which occur in different environments/contexts and with different donors and hence may lead to different results.

4.1.1.1 The initial wider sample

In the initial screening for suitable interventions, the choice is likely to fall on those which are well documented by the donor and on which there is good monitoring, review or evaluation documentation.

4.1.1.2 In-depth sample of case studies

The size of sample may depend on time/resources and available information. However as a rough guide there should be two cases per donor so that if there are 5 donors there might be about 10 cases for more intensive study.

In these cases, some further investigation locally may be necessary. It will be possible to pursue information and judgement by using the local collaborator(s) to seek local documentation, contact (telephone, face to face) with officials, project managers, independent observers (including NGOs and perhaps journalists, consultants and academics) as well as possible visits and interviews with some beneficiaries.

The more intensive case study evidence on the interventions in one country will be analysed to reveal any common management determinants of effectiveness - whether positive or negative. This will include any perceptions about the processes involved, the interface between the donor/recipient actors, the approach to identification, needs of beneficiaries, cultural differences, problem solving, etc.

The interventions should be examined for the factors which had an impact - positive or negative - on the outcomes. They should reveal if possible any general processes or drives, that are common or different across different types of intervention/programme types/instrument. It should also be possible to make comparisons between different country contexts when the whole set of case studies is completed.

4.2 Sector Support for Poverty Reduction

Not all donors provide sectoral aid to promote poverty reduction, and the nature of the aid also varies, though it is usually linked to budgetary support.

Sector aid programmes may involve spending, economic policy or institutional reform (eg agriculture and marketing reforms, health or education expenditure and institutional reforms or charging policies, etc). Our objective is to explore the extent to which the bilateral donor seeks 'pro-poor' benefits in its sector aid spending and its dialogue with recipient authorities.

The focus should be on the elements of the process involved in the design of sector programmes and their conditionalities and in particular on what balance is being sought between ownership and conditionality.

The following four broad elements of the process are suggested for exploration:

4.2.1 Design

- the capacity of public institutions to provide effect delivery of relevant services including any targeting mechanisms for the poor?;

- organizational capacity of poor or vulnerable groups (via pressure groups or bargaining power) to obtain more effective access to services such as land, credit, irrigation equipment, or health facilities?.

4.2.2 Conditionality

4.2.3 Effectiveness/impact

4.2.4 Method

Donor documents on:

• the proposed sector aid programme and its design;

• the agreements with the recipient,

• interviews with both donor officials and advisers, and local recipient officials in relevant Ministries and agencies (and perhaps Districts. (There may be scope for the local collaborator to explore services - eg health - at a local level).

• records of meetings and official monitoring reports

• mid term reviews on the programmes and consultants reports(if available), etc (eg DG VIII Sector Import Finance Evaluations).

The 'team' will no doubt want to investigate the design of the sectoral aid and the donor/recipient authority negotiation themselves. They will no doubt seek the help of local collaborator to review and summarize evidence from local available studies on the impact of sectoral policies and expenditure (including services provided)on their actual or likely impact on the poor. (There is often a substantial local literature which has not always been drawn on.)

Any direct investigation of impact of sectoral intervention by the local collaborator will be more ambitious and will depend on time and resources available.

4.3 Project Interventions

4.3.1 How should project interventions be judged and compared?

4.3.1.1 Elements of Effectiveness

It is suggested that the following elements are highly relevant to effective PR . This is not an exhaustive list and the issues will need to be adapted to the specific type of intervention (agricultural, social, technical/sector or project, etc).

- the appropriateness of services like affordability or appropriateness of the technology for the poor, ease of maintenance, etc.

- mechanisms (mainly bureaucratic) to ensure access of the poor/vulnerable to the services and skills provided.

- internal management or leadership capacity;

- maintenance of services;

- affordability of public services or resources to users,

- financial \economic viability of activities/initiatives including cost recovery/ marketing etc.

4.3.1.2 Apparent Managerial Determinants of Effectiveness

Processes of identification, design and implementation:

- were the objectives of the intervention clear?

- were the poor reasonably clearly identified ?

- how were the needs of the potential beneficiaries assessed?

- what was the degree and nature of participation/consultation by the target group or stakeholders?

- were local or community organizations involved or NGOs?

- were women's needs addressed from the start? etc

- to raise the awareness, motivation and participation of poor groups/women;

- to ensure access of poor to resources or services or to assert their legitimate entitlements? (ie. through effective delivery systems or by helping them to join or build new organizations to improve their bargaining power or influence.)

(A note on Indicators for Measuring and Assessing Primary Stakeholder Participation is attached in Appendix 2. Its Checklist on the nature and extent of participation in projects may be useful in drawing up TORs for local fieldwork ).

Some points to look for :

Were interventions more effective;

4.3.1.3 General characteristics of the different donors management systems

Their appropriateness for PR interventions seem to raise some of the following questions:

Some key management points to look for:

Note. Only the in depth case studies will hope to provide enough information, insight and judgement for the questions posed in sections 4.2 and 4.3 above. There will also be a wider sample of interventions which will not normally provide sufficient information or judgement to meet the requirements . A common format for presentation of information and judgement on effectiveness of interventions is proposed in section 4.5 below and Appendix I. It might be used for the whole sample of interventions even though there will probably be a lot of empty boxes for the wider sample of cases.

4.4 The selection of sample of sectoral and project interventions

Sectoral and project interventions relevant to poverty reduction which date from the mid-1980s onwards are required because the average life of interventions tends to be about 6-8 years. A sample from this period will allow a fairly up-to-date view and will allow access to some interventions which are completed or nearly completed. It will also give a cross section which will allow insight into more recent approaches in interventions which are at a relatively early stage.

It was agreed at the Workshop that donors should be asked for a view on what were their 'best' interventions. However, the sample should not be confined to these. Also, if possible the donors view on best practice interventions should as far as possible be tested at least in one aspect.

To permit the maximum cross-country comparisons of 'similar' interventions (sector or type), the sample should be drawn as far as possible from the following categories of interventions likely to benefit the poor:

4.4.1 Sources of information

Documentation to be consulted will include:

Note that for some donors the documentation may be more available in the capitals than in the field.

Interviews or direct communication will include monitoring the perceptions of people close to the programme as to: how things are going and why they went the way they did; whether clients needs are being met by the programme.

Field work will include interviews with participants in the sector programmes and projects - project managers and experts, some beneficiaries, and other local observers, trying to form views on what the intervention has achieved and how.

Evidence on effectiveness will sometimes be available from beneficiary assessments or built-in base line studies and management information systems and where these exist their results can be used. In most cases final and full impact information is unlikely to be available. Nevertheless, likely impact may often be surmised from outputs or how well interventions were implemented (eg by changes in enrolment, enrolment of girls, pupil teacher ratios, drop-out rates, contraceptives issued, immunizations carried out, drinking water systems installed, credit issued, etc).

4.5 Presentation of material and conclusions

4.5.1 The wide sample matrix

The PR information which can be drawn from the larger sample might be set out in a matrix according to the objectives, the nature of the management (process), the outputs, and the apparent sustainability and impact of the outcome (outputs might have to be used as proxies for impact where such information is not available). Some categories of judgement on effectiveness of these aspects should be provided. All the following questions are posed in relation to poor or marginalized groups.

a Objective of intervention and how it was intended to achieve the goal of PR, dates, funds committed and disbursed.

b. Process: Beneficiary Involvement? Appropriateness of design? (affordability, labour intensity etc) Flexibility in implementation? Organizational strengthening/? Empowerment objective and approach?

c.. Outputs: qualitative or quantitative statement of infrastructure created, distribution of information/messages (health, nutrition or husbandry practices, etc ), distribution of services including quality improvement (eg immunization, enrolment in primary schools especially girls, supply of drinking water, credit etc); effects of services (reduced drop out rate, reduced class size, improved yields, changes in orientation or policy, curriculum improvement, employment created).

d. Impact: direct evidence of impact on poor beneficiaries if available in terms of welfare, knowledge, livelihood or rights.

e. Sustainability: perhaps broken down into various elements such as empowerment of the poor, adequacy of management skills, government support, financial viability, environmental viability?

Note that Appendix 1 sets out more fully the suggested format and type of rankings with an example. A matrix of this kind should be filled in as far as possible for each programme or project for which monitoring reports, reviews or evaluation material is available.

4.5.2 In-depth case studies

4.5.2.1 The main points from the studies should be highlighted in the report. A summary of each case study should be provided in annexes.

4.5.2.2 Qualitative conclusions emerging from the whole country sample, especially from the more in-depth studies should be set out in terms of the apparent general determinants of effectiveness.

These conclusions might relate to the following questions/hypotheses:

4.5.2.3 Donor Performance

4.5.3 Cross-country evidence

Conclusions will be drawn out at the time of the Workshop when all the country studies will be available.

It may be possible when the evidence from all the countries is pooled, to make some comparison of the 'country' context and 'the donor dimension' in the apparent effectiveness of interventions. eg Did effectiveness vary more between countries than different types/management processes of intervention within each country?

V Country Report Structure

Each team's report should have a maximum length of 25,000 words (max 50 pages single space) excluding annexes. Delivery dates have already been planned for teams (at London workshop). Absolute deadline: mid-September 1997.

Possible Outline

I. Country context (mainly contributed by local collaborator)

• Current poverty situation.
• The current recipient strategies, policies and attitudes towards PR and perceptions
• of the main constraints to effective PR.
• The evolution of the poverty agenda especially in relation to political reform
• (if resources permit).
• Local perceptions of the role of donors/aid for PR.

III. Recipient/Donor dialogue on PR

IV. Case studies in directly targeted interventions

- particular managerial approaches or organization by donors and recipients

- processes for incorporating PR into identification, design, implementation and monitoring of interventions

- the influence of the sector or area or context of the interventions

V. General Lessons of experience and suggestions

What lessons of experience have emerged from interventions in the 1990s? To cover:

• donor /recipient dialogue on PR at the country or sector level on policies/public expenditure etc.

• different instruments or types of direct PR intervention

Any insights on comparative importance for PR effectiveness of:

• the country context and sector or instrument of intervention

• different donor approaches

• coordination among donors to reduce duplication and evolve a more integrated EU PR strategy for the country.

What were the main constraints to more effective PR?

Concluding remarks.

What is the comparative advantage of external donors in the pursuit of PR? Are there recommendations for future action including opportunities which European donors missed?

---

Appendix Ia. Format For Presentation of Projects And Sector Programmes

This is based on sections 4.2 and 4.3 of the main text and is illustrated with examples from an intervention in the health sector. It includes five main headings; objective, process, outputs, impact and sustainability to record a brief description of the results . In Appendix 1b for each of these elements there is a suggested approach to making (ranking) judgements on their effectiveness.

Objective

The clarity and purpose of the donors intervention and how it was intended to meet a PR goal.

Expenditure committed and disbursed by the donor.

Date of commencement and actual or expected termination.

I Process.

Identification.

Were intervention plans and design based on any analysis or evidence of their likely impact on poor or marginalized groups? Were women's needs taken into account from the start?

What was the nature and degree of consultation\participation of the poor in the identification of their needs, the design and implementation of the intervention to meet them.

Appropriateness of the Design

The degree to which it was planned or designed to serve or assist poor people through its;

a) location ;(eg concentration on poorer or more marginal areas for primary health clinics)

b) special targeting mechanisms ; (eg special feeding for children or women).

c) affordability and access to services or resources, etc.(eg subsidized drugs for poor )

d) design for maximum employment creation among poor groups;

e) institution building plans; training of personnel and other measures .

e)empowerment; strengthening capacity to gain better access to resources and entitlements (eg. Active membership/village health committees).

f ) cost-effectiveness of whole intervention in terms of meeting needs of poor.

The implementation process.

Flexibility and scope for learning and feedback (evidence of modifications to the design to reflect changing conditions or different local conditions in relation to the poor).

Dialogue and conditions (mainly sector wide interventions).

(evidence on the nature of dialogue and how the compliance with conditions was set up) .

II. Outputs.

Quantity of outputs from intervention and proportion (estimated) of outputs reaching poor - distinguishing if possible between the poor (say lowest 40%) and very poor (say lowest 10% if possible ) ; eg. clinic visits, patients treated, drug use, contraceptive use, etc.

Quality of outputs including appropriateness \affordability\ ease of access by poor;

Degree of compliance with conditions or objectives agreed in relation to commitments or expenditures for the poor (eg any reorientation of public spending towards primary health services or other targeted groups).

Institutional development achieved directly from intervention; strengthening/community organisations (eg. village health committees)

III. Sustainability.

Evidence of self reliance: emergence of leadership within the project, management and maintenance skills.

Financial viability of the project ; budgetary situation, self financing etc.

IV. Impact.

Welfare; eg reduced infant mortality, reduced incidence from different diseases,

Knowledge; eg health education levels of women,

Livelihood; increased productivity \income from better health,

Rights\Entitlement Indirect influence or stimulus of intervention on empowerment of poor; ie. were the poor better organized and more assertive in their access and entitlement to their rights, evidence of modified outputs, eg. in response of authorities in relation to immunization programmes or extra nutrition).

V. Any other general comments.

---

Appendix 1b. A Suggested Ranking by Effectiveness

Aspect	Effectiveness Ranking
	Yes		No		Not known
	Substantially positive ++	Moderately positive +	No change or negligible	Negative or adverse
Objectives & Process Beneficiary (poor) participation in identification & design?
Appropriateness of design for PR?
Actual Output Access of poor to resources/services?
Affordability?
Sustainability
Impact on poor Welfare
Knowledge
Livelihood: income/employment
Rights/participation

---

Appendix 3: Main points from EU Council Resolution 'The Fight Against Poverty' (10641/93 dated 2/12/93)

These resolutions yield some criteria for judging effectiveness of donors.

• PR to be a central theme of all dialogue between the authorities of donors and recipients to ensure that the objective of PR is taken into account in the formulation and implementation of all their programmes.

• EU donors to coordinate policies on PR in the field.

• to help their partners to define and introduce valid policies to combat poverty.

• structural adjustment programmes should take account of the creation of jobs in industries and services, rural development, reduction of inequalities and access of the poor to social services.

• ensure the participation of the poor in the process of political, economic and social decision-taking.

• there should be adequate targeting of interventions on the poorest or most vulnerable groups.

Home / About the Project / Collaborators Publications

Updated on February 25, 1997
Developer's Note: These pages were developed for use on the Netscape browser. Please address comments to Aidan Cox, ODI